CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
By conception, do you mean implantation, or fertiilization? Where does science say that life begins at implantation or fertilization? A fetus is not a baby until it has brainwaves. Brainwaves are how you tell if someone is alive.
You presented sources before to support the fact that life begins at conception. Why do I need to post them if you already know them? Life begins at conception when it is genetically unique fact.
Prove that the zygote is a fully sentient human being. You just want to force women to give birth. If abortion is banned, women will die from back alley abortions.
Since we've lacked real discussion on this topic for a while, why not start some here.
Life begins at conception. Fact. Babies have a right to life.
Maybe so. But up until birth, the baby is fully dependent upon the mother to survive. If the mother were not present, the fetus would not have the ability to develop into a full human life. A right to life does not give the right to use someone else's life.
A fetus is just as alive as sperm, or egg, a single skin cell of a human, or a whole human, sure. But only one of the things I listed is protected and treated as human in our society. "Life" is not inherent to a right to survive at the expense of someone else.
This is a deep philosophical question, it that egg a person? A person has a right to life, so one would need to determine a what point is the fetus a person. Furthermore, what constitutes a person?
I am prochoice, not forced birth. When I used to believe that life begins at birth, you had a shit fit. It is important to look at the logical scientific facts instead of making an appeal to emotion.
You kept saying the fact that life begins at conception was a fact. Now it isn't a fact but only an appeal to emotion? Try and be a bit more insane if you can.
Have you seriously forgotten everything you said before? I just don't get your mental illness at all. Does it mean you can't remember? You said it was a fact that life begins when it is genetically unique you were right. Nothing to do with religion.
A pro-choice individual doesn't believe a fetus is a person, and thus isn't "pro killing innocent human beings".
Pro-lifers, on the other hand, do legitimately believe that a woman should be forced to give birth to a fetus even if she doesn't want it. If you believe that is a good thing then that is fine, but don't try to dishonestly deflect.
There is, quite often, a philosophical difference between a "human life", and a "person". While a fetus is a human life, those who are pro-choice generally does not believe it has personhood (be it in the form of consciousness, sentience, self awareness, a soul, etc.).
even if you deny that the human fetus is not human, you can not deny that the human fetus has the potential to be human. this is most of what separates a horse fetus is different from a human fetus.
a baby's environment is the mother's body. it is not an external component. the only required external influence is nutrition. sperm will not turn into a human in its environment. it will break down, and be replaced.
The mother's body is an external component. The nutrition it obtains is from an external source. Again, you are changing the parameters for one and not the other, creating a double standard.
They aren't all though. Abortions exist regardless of the laws that exist. Pro choice means you are against one thing in a big list of things that contribute to abortions.
Prochoice isnot proabortion or prokilling. Prochoicers believe that a women has the right to choose parenting, adoption, abortion, and contraception. Life begins when the baby has brainwaves. Brainwaves are how you tell if someone is alive. The zygote is not a sentient person with brainwaves. It is the strawman fallacy to say that prochoice people favor death.
If he can accuse me, I can accuse him. I noticed that you always find a problem with what I say. I could say that we are on createdebate.com, and you would disagree.
Pro-lifers as forced birthers? Interesting concept, but quite rude to the tongue. This would unfairly group people in this category you have created. Some pro-lifers only wish for people to not have abortions if the baby was just born from unprotected sex or a man's condom broke. Some pro-lifers would say abortion may be a better decision if the mother, father, and/or both, are not prepared for a baby at all. Rape is also another issue.
Well, in all of those cases, anyone who is against abortions is still someone who is in favor of forcing women to give birth to a child when they don't want to, just only through specific circumstances. But referring to those people as 'forced birthers' is still accurate to their position.
I don't think I said it was inaccurate. Just rude.
Well, is it rude to address what you think someone is doing wrong? Would it be rude to call a rapist a rapist if they found that offensive and preferred to be called a "pro-right-to-have-sex"?
Is it any different when people on the prolife side refer to pro-choice people as being pro-killing innocent lives?
Edit: You did use the world 'unfair,' which in the context you used means "unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable." So you were going down the 'unreasonable/inaccurate' line of thinking.
Well, is it rude to address what you think someone is doing wrong?
A term is already given towards that group. That term is pro-life. I don't see the point of using negative sounding terms to describe a group when a term has already been accepted.
Would it be rude to call a rapist a rapist if they found that offensive and preferred to be called a "pro-right-to-have-sex"?
What they did was rape. Te term follows. Your example doesn't make much sense. What stance the group we are talking about is "for life". Meaning they prefer the woman have the child. Forced birthers is a rude term.
Is it any different when people on the prolife side refer to pro-choice people as being pro-killing innocent lives?
People on the pro'life side shouldn't be saying that either in my opinion.
You did use the world 'unfair,' which in the context you used means "unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable." So you were going down the 'unreasonable/inaccurate' line of thinking.
A term is already given towards that group. That term is pro-life. I don't see the point of using negative sounding terms to describe a group when a term has already been accepted.
Well, often if a group that is doing something negative wants to be taken more seriously, they will adopt a different name (both prolife and prochoice are guilty of this.) For example the term "anti-semetist" was adopted because people who were against Judaism believed it made them sound more professional than saying they were anti-Jew.
If you believe a group is negative and there is an accurate term that describes what they are doing and that term also describes what you think is wrong with what they believe, it is fine to call them that.
What they did was rape. Te term follows. Your example doesn't make much sense. What stance the group we are talking about is "for life". Meaning they prefer the woman have the child. Forced birthers is a rude term.
They have chosen to be called 'for life,' yes, but what they believe is equivalent to being a 'forced birther.' By being in favor of 'life,' you are also in favor of requiring a women to give birth, regardless of what she wants.
Along the lines of your response to my hypothetical: What you are doing is forcing women to give birth. The term follows.
People on the pro'life side shouldn't be saying that either in my opinion.
I agree.
No.
You said originally "This would unfairly group people in this category you have created. Some pro-lifers only wish for people to not have abortions if the baby was just born from unprotected sex or a man's condom broke. Some pro-lifers would say abortion may be a better decision if the mother, father, and/or both, are not prepared for a baby at all."
You were objecting to the use of the term 'forced birthers' because you believed it would be unfair to all those people you listed. And yet, in each of those cases, the pro-lifer is still in favor of forcing a women to give birth against her will.
Well, often if a group that is doing something negative wants to be taken more seriously, they will adopt a different name (both prolife and prochoice are guilty of this.) For example the term "anti-semetist" was adopted because people who were against Judaism believed it made them sound more professional than saying they were anti-Jew.
If you believe a group is negative and there is an accurate term that describes what they are doing and that term also describes what you think is wrong with what they believe, it is fine to call them that.
I have no objection to this. I agree.
They have chosen to be called 'for life,' yes, but what they believe is equivalent to being a 'forced birther.' By being in favor of 'life,' you are also in favor of requiring a women to give birth, regardless of what she wants.
Along the lines of your response to my hypothetical: What you are doing is forcing women to give birth. The term follows.
I see what you are saying, but they way I see it is that those pro-lifers are not actually forcing someone to give birth. I mean sure there has to be an instance of when a pro-lifer has forced someone to give birth, but in the way I'm viewing this I don't see the name fitting properly if the party isn't actually forcing women to give birth.
I see what you are saying, but they way I see it is that those pro-lifers are not actually forcing someone to give birth. I mean sure there has to be an instance of when a pro-lifer has forced someone to give birth, but in the way I'm viewing this I don't see the name fitting properly if the party isn't actually forcing women to give birth.
Ok, so you're saying that 'forced birther' is not an accurate term because people who are pro-life do not actually 'force' anyone to give birth. This is where we differ. (If I did not sum up your argument correctly, please correct me. :) )
The term 'force,' while it has many definitions, means to make (someone) do something against their will. If a women does not want to give birth to a child, requiring her to do so against her will, regardless of extenuating circumstances, is a clear example of 'force.'
Synonyms of 'force' include: compel, constrain, oblige, pressure, etc... I think that the term is apt for this situation.
Ok, so you're saying that 'forced birther' is not an accurate term because people who are pro-life do not actually 'force' anyone to give birth. This is where we differ. (If I did not sum up your argument correctly, please correct me. :) )
Absolutely fine. We seem to be on the same page. Splendid!
The term 'force,' while it has many definitions, means to make (someone) do something against their will. If a women does not want to give birth to a child, requiring her to do so against her will, regardless of extenuating circumstances, is a clear example of 'force.'
Synonyms of 'force' include: compel, constrain, oblige, pressure, etc... I think that the term is apt for this situation.
I believe this is where we disagree. Those who write law can be called forced birthers if the law writers ban abortion. Those who rally against abortion aren't really forcing anyone to do anything. If you see what I am saying.
I believe this is where we disagree. Those who write law can be called forced birthers if the law writers ban abortion. Those who rally against abortion aren't really forcing anyone to do anything. If you see what I am saying.
Ooooooooh just got there. Wow, I feel silly. That's very intelligent.
I think you could still make an argument for calling people 'pro-forced-births' but yes you are absolutely correct.
But those who oppose abortion are the ones that elect politicians that write said laws, and the popular support amongst said people are what leads said politicians to do so. They are elected representatives, which means that the electorate plays a significant part in the process and thus are also responsible.
But those who oppose abortion are the ones that elect politicians that write said laws, and the popular support amongst said people are what leads said politicians to do so. They are elected representatives, which means that the electorate plays a significant part in the process and thus are also responsible.
Not necessarily. It's a shared effort for all who voted for the politician. Even then no action has been committed by the pro-life people. Which is why I see the term is ill-fitting.
I think they are because they don't want to share any of the responsibility of bringing an unwanted child into the world. I am pro-choice because I believe abortion is a medical procedure and should be between a woman and her doctor. Abortion was only illegal in the USA for seventy years. Before that women routinely had abortions, by doctors if they were wealthy enough, or by midwives if they weren't. A lot of abortions were self administered and many women died because of that. What we need is better birth control and better education about birth control. Then, the need for abortion would disappear. No one should be forced to have a child they don't want, can't afford or, especially, because of someone else's religious convictions.
